By Bitcoin Aldizkaria - Duela 6 hilabete - Irakurketa Denbora: 6 minutu
Silicon Valleyko sozialista: Sam Bankman-Fried
"Jendeak autoritate bat nahi du gauzak nola baloratzen diren esatea, baina autoritate hori aukeratzen du ez gertakarietan edo emaitzetan oinarrituta; autoritatea edo ezaguna dirudielako aukeratzen dute".
-Michael Lewis, The Big Short.
Michael Lewis egile ospetsuak bere liburua argitaratu zuen, Going Infinite: Tycoon berri baten igoera eta erorketa, on the rise and fall of FTX on the first day of the trial of its notorious founder Sam Bankman-Fried (Bankman-Fried). The book has met with heavy criticism by commentators for its seemingly favorable portrayal of the millennial crypto founder.
Dibertigarria da, bere oinarrian, Bankman-Fried-en istorioa oso eskola zaharra delako. Laburmetraia handia-Aktore pribilegiatu baten istorio bat, bere onurarako gure gizarteak pertsonei balio-judizioak egiteko gogoa aprobetxatu zuena, ez bere ibilbideagatik –– edo Lewisek esan zuen bezala, “gertaerak”––, multzo batean oinarrituta baizik. heuristikaren eta pertsona “sofistikatuen” onespena.
Bankman-Fried-ek konfiantzazkoak gure gizarteko "pertsona adimentsuak" izan daitezen konbentzitzeko duen gaitasuna –– Lewis barne–– bitxia da. Baina zergatik erori ziren harengandik?
Beharbada, Bankman-Fried ulertzen zuten norbait zelako izango da. Insider bat zen, zeinak -- haiek bezala -- kriptografia kapitalizatu dezaketen komunitate gisa ikusten zuena, elikatzeko ekosistema bat baino.
Kriptokolonialismoa
Fortune Magazine in haien profila of Bankman-Fried, wrote that the Bay Area native doesn’t look like the most powerful man in crypto. But is that really true?
If anything, a 20-something year-old man oozing social awkwardness, an MIT degree, and poor fashion-sense is the wet dream of many a modern “sophisticated” tech investor. Bankman-Fried could easily be a character on the HBO show Silicon Valley
Orain konposatu hori bere jaiotza-eskubidearekin –– merkataritzako basilika moderno batean zuzenbide irakasle diren bi guraso–– Stanford Unibertsitatea, eta kapitalismo modernoaren figura ia mesianikoa duzu.
One need not look further than the praise given to him by Kevin O’Leary, saying “I'm a big advocate for Sam because he has two parents that are compliance lawyers." the Shark Tank investor said 2022 hasi.
O’Leary continued: “If there's ever a place I could be that I'm not going to get in trouble, it's going to be at FTX.” We later found out that the Canadian investor was paid close to a million dollars an hour to be a public spokesperson for Bankman-Fried.
Baina Bankman-Fried-en fede onez haratago, inbertitzaileen arreta bereganatu zuen benetako salmenta puntua Bankman-Fried-en eginkizuna zen.
Ez "altruismo eraginkorra” –– modan dauden mugimendu enpatiko faltsuetara harpidetzea, zalantzarik gabe, marketin-mugimendu ona da elite finantzarioentzat. Baina, bere inbertitzaileak benetan hunkitu zituena bere ustea zen kriptografia ez zela eraikitzeko merezi duen industria serio bat, baizik eta aukera paregabea apustulariengandik diru poltsa bat hartzeko.
As a Sequoia Capital’s venture capitalist put it in a now deleted profile on Bankman-Fried, “Yes, crypto eventually could replace money, and, yes, it can eventually decentralize the web,” the investor said.
Jarraitu zuen: «Baina gauza horiek guztiak ez dira egia gaur egun. Eta, beraz, zer da gaur egun jendeak egiten duen gauza? Negoziatzen dute. Eta jendeak merkataritza egiten badu, eta jendeari merkataritza gustatzen bazaio, zein da diru asko irabaziko duen negozio eredua? Truke bat izango litzateke».
Aipamen honek erakusten du Bankman-Fried-eko inbertitzaileek ez zutela kripto-komunitatea serio ikusten. Haientzat, kriptografiak berak gizartearen esangura bera du hiru gerezi-multzo jarraian lortzeko Vegas kasinoko slot-makina batean. Hobe kasinoan inbertitzea gerezien argazkiak baino.
Agree or disagree with them, the crypto, and specifically the bitcoin subsection, of the community is serious with their goals. They are largely a set of libertarian, hyper-principled people. They are profoundly serious about their view on how blockchains can be used to liberate the currently unbanked, protect the value of one’s labor from ever increasing inflation, and connect people around the world through payments, and specifically remove government interference in money.
As Erik Voorhees’ puts it –– in what is now one of the final debates with Bankman-Fried –– “what we are doing here is in effect bringing the same separation that occurred between church and state to state and payments. In effect freeing people around the world.”
The earnesty of belief held by people like Voorhees doesn’t compute for people like Sequoia VC or Bankman-Fried. For them those beliefs were useful in that they got a community to work hard for close to no reward until the first few bitcoin bull runs. But the belief itself? For the jaded elite, a company mission often is a means to a single end: Enrich one’s bank account.
Haientzat, misio bat "karitate" bat egitea edo institutuan zerbitzu-bidaia bat egitea bezain esanguratsua da Ivy League-ko onarpen ofizial baten itxura ona izateko. "Jokoaren" zati bat besterik ez da.
This is quite problematic, since their investments in immature crypto companies –– and overall childish behavior, like when FTX planteatu $420,690,000 from 69 investors –– is a large part of the reason the “crypto” industry isn’t respected by the general public.
Moreover, Bankman-Fried regularly made statements criticizing bitcoin, for being “slow, and bulky.” Keep in mind, the bitcoin community not only birthed crypto, but are –– for better or worse –– perhaps the most ideologically pure people in technology.
Moreover, Bankman-Fried sought to influence legislation that would impact the earnest bitcoin. Since he was –– prior to FTX’s collapse –– one of the biggest Washington donors, he likely would succeed in lobbying the government to follow his view.
But this here is a form of colonization. The crypto community was a vibrant ecosystem prior to Bankman-Fried’s entry. It was a bunch of misfits that came together to build something that was unique and important. A chance to feel empowered in a system they feel marginalized in. For Bankman-Fried and his cohorts to come into it aiming to make a percentage off of the trading fees of investors –– rather than create products and businesses in the ethos of bitcoin –– was their original sin.
Hain harritu behar al ginateke azkenean gainditzea?
Silizioko sozialista bat
In a similar vein to a young child who asks “why doesn’t the government just print more money and give it to the homeless?” –– Bankman-Fried’s claim to fame was to make a lot of money and give it away. Like some benevolent patrician. Andrew Carnegie in board shorts.
Baina benetan karitaterako bulkada benetakoa al zen, ala bere enpatia bere kapital soziala handitzeko joko estrategia bat besterik ez zen?
In a phone call with crypto reporter Tiffany Fong, Bankman-Fried said that he donated as much money to Republicans as he did Democrats, but did so quietly in order to gain favor with journalists who he felt were predominantly left wing. In other words, Bankman-Fried manufactured a public persona of humanitarianism, but in reality his raison d'être was to gain more power and clout
His former business partner Anthony Scaramucci esan he saw Bankman-Fried as having a sort of “superiority complex.” So, perhaps in Bankman-Fried’s head he thought that he could single-handedly solve all of the world’s problems if only he had all of the money.
Whatever the truth may be –– what is it that made Bankman-Fried think that he had the right to use other’s money at his own discretion? Or for him to enter a space that he, once again, had close to nothing to do with creating. What made him think that he should be the authority who decides what aspects are kosher or haram? Or write legislation for it?
At its core is a belief he was the smartest person in the room. A belief certainly had the innate privilege to feel given his parents’ societal standing, and his undeniable analytical wit. But, what was missing in the matrix of Bankman-Fried was a soul. A soul that would allow for him to truly respect community that he was entering as a stranger.
Historia Bankman-Fried-en antzeko pertsonen adibidez beteta dago, boterera igo zen utopia berri eta bidezkoago baten arduradun izango zirela aginduz. Noiz, egia esan, bila dabiltzan aldaketa nagusia boterean daudenak izatea da. Bankman-Fried-ek trope hori hartu eta Silicon Valleyko kultura bota zuen.
As Michael Lewis writes, for Bankman-Fried, most of life is just some kind of game. One which –– if most legal experts zuzenak dira –– he won’t be getting any restarts on.
Hau da Jacob Kozhipatt. Adierazitako iritziak guztiz bereak dira eta ez dute zertan islatu BTC Inc edo Bitcoin Aldizkaria.
Jatorrizko iturria: Bitcoin Aldizkaria